You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under the Texas
Public Information Act (the "act"), chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was
assigned ID# 123554.

The City of Midland (the "city") received a request for "information or incident reports"
concerning a specified individual. You state that "[t]wo incident reports were responsive to
the request, and one (1) was forwarded to the requestor." You ask whether the submitted
report is excepted from disclosure pursuant to section 552.101 of the Government Code in
conjunction with the "informer's privilege." We have considered the exception you claim
and reviewed the submitted information.

Section 552.101 excepts from disclosure "information considered to be confidential by
law, either constitutional, statutory, or by judicial decision." Texas courts long have
recognized the informer's privilege, see Aguilar v. State, 444 S.W.2d 935, 937 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1969); Hawthorne v. State, 10 S.W.2d 724, 725 (Tex. Crim. App. 1928), and it is
a well-established exception under the Public Information Act, Open Records Decision
No. 549 at 4 (1990). For information to come under the protection of the informer's
privilege, the information must relate to a violation of a civil or criminal statute. See Open
Records Decision Nos. 515 at 2-5 (1988), 391 (1983).

In Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 59 (1957), the United States Supreme Court
explained the rationale that underlies the informer's privilege:

What is usually referred to as the informer's privilege is in reality the
Government's privilege to withhold from disclosure the identity of persons
who furnish information of violations of law to officers charged with
enforcement of that law. [Citations omitted.] The purpose of the privilege
is the furtherance and protection of the public interest in effective law
enforcement. The privilege recognizes the obligation of citizens to
communicate their knowledge of the commission of crimes to law
enforcement officials and, by preserving their anonymity, encourages them
to perform that obligation.

The privilege excepts the informer's statement itself only to the extent necessary to
protect the informer's identity. Open Records Decision No. 549 at 5 (1990). However,
once the identity of the informer is known to the subject of the communication, the
exception is no longer applicable. Open Records Decision No. 202 at 2 (1978); see also
508 Tex. R. Civ. Evid.

In this instance, you state that "the person who reported the assault as witness, victim and
informer acted, at minimum, as an individual who has cooperated in law enforcement
activities."(1) Based on your representations and a review of the information, it is evident that
the complainant's identity is known to the suspects; therefore, we conclude that the
informer's privilege is not applicable in this instance.(2)

We are resolving this matter with an informal letter ruling rather than with a published open
records decision. This ruling is limited to the particular records at issue under the facts
presented to us in this request and should not be relied on as a previous determination
regarding any other records. If you have any questions regarding this ruling, please contact
our office.

1. 11We note that you have not raised any other applicable exceptions to disclosure for the submitted information. Therefore, we cannot address whether the information at issue, or a portion thereof, could be withheld by another exception under the act.

2. 22We assume that any other responsive information, to the extent it exists, will be provided to the requestor, since you have not raised any other exceptions to disclosure.